aipm: areawide integrated pest management...aipm –areawide integrated pest management similar to...
TRANSCRIPT
AIPM: Areawide Integrated Pest Management
Frank G. Zalom
Department of Entomology and Nematology
University of California, Davis
Pest – any organism that interferes with the activities and
desires of humans – (as defined by FIFRA)
Pest control – as early as 2500 BC, the Sumerians used
sulfur to control plant diseases, insects, mites (also
mentioned in Greek and Roman literature)
Pesticides –
Inorganic and botanical pesticides such as arsenic,
lime-sulfur and nicotine became commercially available
in the late 1800’s
Synthetic organic pesticides such
as DDT was important during WWII
to control public health pests
Paul Muller (1948)
Nobel Prize for Medicine
Pesticides
Agricultural and public health uses expanded greatly
after the war.
Pesticides
Rapid adoption
• relatively inexpensive
• easy to use
• Effective
• predictable results
Pesticides
Things start to go wrong
• non-target species impact
secondary pests
wildlife
• pest resistance to pesticides
• soil and water contamination
Integrated Pest Management - IPM
"Integrated pest management is an approach that
employs a combination of techniques to control the
wide variety of potential pests that may threaten crops.
It involves maximum reliance on natural pest population
controls, along with a combination of techniques that
my contribute to suppression - cultural methods, pest-
specific diseases, resistant crop varieties, sterile
insects, attractants, augmentation of parasites or
predators, or chemical pesticides as needed.”
Council on Environmental Quality, 1972
An alternative strategy
Integrated Pest Management - IPM
• Multiple tactics (in a synergistic way)
• Multidisciplinary
• Ecosystem-based
• Knowledge-intensive
• Risk reduction focus
• Reduces risk to human health
• Reduces risk to non-target organisms and
the environment
• Increases economic benefits by adopting
best management practices and reducing
unnecessary control inputs
• Mitigates risk of pest resistance
IPM - Benefits
IPM typically addresses a localized pest population
and is typically practiced by the person responsible for
past control at the site …
• on a farm
• in a dairy
• in a park
• in a dwelling
• etc.
IPM – Often pest and site specific
In the case of a highly motile key pest that is difficult
to control, an uncoordinated approach provides
opportunities for the pest population to build up over
the entire area, overwhelming the capacity to control
the pest even in well-managed fields.
Often leads to:
• Increased injury to humans, crops, animals and
landscapes
• Increased use of pesticides to control the pest (with
associated costs, development of resistance, and
risk to humans and the environment
• Disruption of existing IPM systems, especially those
that incorporate natural biological control agents
Some pests are not easily managed by individuals in a
site-specific manner
Typically addresses pests that are particularly motile:
Migration of a pest from areas where controls
cannot or are not being applied to sites where they
cause health, economic, or environmental harm
prevents their successful and sustainable control or
elimination from those sites.
In such circumstances, the overall reduction of the
pest population in the area, region or community
where it occurs through a coordinated community-
wide approach will be more successful and
sustainable than uncoordinated controls applied by
individuals on the properties that they manage.
AIPM – Areawide Integrated Pest Management
AIPM is also particularly useful for sites that are not
suitable for management in isolation such as:
• Natural areas – forests
• Urban areas – street trees, urban forests
• Disease vectors – mosquitoes, ticks
AIPM – Areawide Integrated Pest Management
Similar to IPM in that emphasis is on implementing
systems-based strategies that utilize multiple tactics
that emphasize prevention, avoidance, monitoring,
and suppression using practices that are biologically-
based and reduce risk to human health and the
environment
Focus on managing pest populations in all the niches
in which they occur
Detailed multi-year planning and organization
(conventional strategy focuses narrowly on
protecting people, the crop, livestock, buildings,
etc. from direct attack)
(conventional strategy tends to be reactive and is
implemented independently by the affected
individuals)
AIPM – differs from conventional pest management of
local pest populations in several important ways:
Tends to utilize advanced technologies that may be
difficult or less effective when used by individuals
• Cultural, physical or mechanical controls
• Biological control releases
• Semiochemicals (including pheromone mating
disruption)
• Treatment (or elimination of alternate) of hosts
on public lands and private gardens)
• Sterile insect technique (SIT)
• Resistant or tolerant plant varieties
• etc.
AIPM – differs from conventional pest management of
local pest populations in several important ways:
Cottony-cushion scale – importation and release of
Vedalia beetle in 1887 saved citrus industry in California
Some classical examples of AIPM:
Cottony cushion scale -
Found in LA in 1876 Vedalia beetle – Introduced from
Australia in 1887Complete success
First example of ‘classical biological control’
Yellow fever mosquito (Aedes aegypti) - strict sanitation
program implemented to prevent breeding of the mosquito,
first used for successful control in Havana, Cuba (1898).
Program implemented in Panama by William Gorgas
allowed the building of the Panama Canal
Some classical examples of AIPM:
34,000 workers died from
yellow fever before the
US took over construction
in 1904
William Gorgas
Screwworm fly – SIT program involving release of
millions of sterile flies to prevent the successful mating
of endemic flies
Some classical examples of AIPM:
E.F. Knipling and
R. Bushland
Found in Napa and Sonoma counties in 2009,
and 9 counties by the end of 2010
European Grape Vine Moth:
Contamination
and bunch rot
• Sustainable, long term management of the pest
• Shared resources to enable utilization of
technologies and expertise that are unavailable
or more expensive for individuals
• Avoidance of external costs (including
development of pesticide resistance, reduction of
naturally-occurring biological control agents, and
harm resulting to humans and the environment
caused by use of disruptive control tactics)
Experience has shown that pest suppression on an
areawide basis can be more economical than on a
farm-by-farm or site-by-site basis for reducing
losses caused by highly mobile and invasive pests:
Benefits of AIPM:
• Address mobile key pests on farms, in natural areas,
or in urban areas
• Pest control at a scale larger than a single field, ranch,
building or land parcel
• Systems thinking
• Utilize multiple management tactics for control to
produce a more sustainable, long term solution
• Focused on reduced-risk practices, resource
conservation and sustainability
• Synergistic partnerships – local/regional/Federal
collaborations as appropriate
Multi-institutional
Public/private
Community engagement
What are AIPM programs?
AIPM principles are applicable to a diversity of pests in
different types of ecosystems across the United
States. We have invited four panelists who will
describe what AIPM strategies look like for some
specific pests, and challenges to their successful
control.
• Urban pests: Dr. Faith Oi, University of Florida
• Aquatic pests: Dr. Lee Van Wychen, Weed
Science Society of America
• Forestry pests: Dr. Paula Shrewsbury,
University of Maryland
• Agricultural pests: Dr. Kelley Tilmon, Ohio
State University
AIPM panel participants:
AIPM: Areawide Integrated Pest Management
Frank G. Zalom
Department of Entomology and Nematology
University of California, Davis
Faith M. Oi
University of Florida
Entomology & Nematology Department
Gainesville, Florida
Jersey City apt building
infestations started by
two or more
introductions followed
by extensive spread
(These are the types of
maps used in litigation.)
Fig. 2. Building floor plans: Jersey City: (a) JC-A and (b) JC-B. Sampled rooms indicated by shading. JC-A and JC-B cluster 1, dark gray (outlined with solid black rectangle); cluster 2, light gray (outlined with dashed black rectangle).
Prevent
Inspect/monitor
Identify
Employ tactics
Document
Evaluate
IPM
IPM (Integrated Pest Management) – an integration of technologies used to reduce pests and pest conducive conditions. Common sense pest control.
Pesticides
Biological Control
Physical and Mechanical Control
Cultural and Sanitation Practices
Education and Communication
IPM
IPM Tactics
• Damage is with grain of wood• Contains carton/mud• Which termite?• EVIDENCE, DAMAGE, LIVE?
What type of termite?How do you know?
Conducive conditions?EVIDENCE, DAMAGE, LIVE?
Red imported fire ant stings have white pustules
• Generally takes ~24 hrto develop pustule
• Some will not develop a pustule
• Anaphylaxis in <1% of those stung
• Rarely, death
Pustules on an infant's hand formed by fire ant
stings. Photo by Kelly Palmer. eXtension.org
RIFA: Potential Trade Impacts• 322 unique mtDNA
haplotypes (i.e., genes inherited together from a single parent)
• 311 confined to ants in native range
• Only 3 haplotypes found in newly invaded areas
• These 3 haplotypes appear to be the most common in the U.S.
(Science 2011)
Yellow fever is an acute viral hemorrhagic disease transmitted by infected mosquitoes Yellow=jaundice
200,000 cases of yellow fever 30,000 deaths
Worldwide, yearly
90% in Africa
Family Flaviridaehttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs100/en/
March 12, 2018, NYT
237 deaths in the season already
“If you vaccinate 30 million people, you’ll get about 30 deaths,” he says….
“…. But if yellow fever infected 30 million people, two million could die.”
Congenital Zika Syndrome:…infected with Zika virus before birth (CDC)• Severe microcephaly; skull
has partially collapsed• Decreased brain tissue with a
specific pattern of brain damage…
• Damage to the back of the eye…
• Congenital contractures, such as clubfoot or arthrogryposis
• Hypertonia restricting body movement soon after birth
We need more “boots on the ground” for
surveillance. There is no national surveillance system for non-
agricultural, non-plant pests.
We need well-trained, field-ready entomologists
who can recognize invasive species and
resurging pests; then come up with a plan to
effectively “control, contain, and clean up.”
In short, we need resources that will support the
implementation of the National IPM Roadmap.
Southern Weed Science Society
Areawide IPM – Aquatic Weed Control
Dr. Lee Van Wychen
Director of Science Policy
The National and Regional Weed Science Societies
North Central
Weed Science Society
1. Delta Region Areawide Aquatic Weed Project: http://ucanr.edu/sites/DRAAWP
Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta importance Aquatic Weed Targets Stakeholder Collaboration Research and Assessment
2. Other Successful Weed AIPM Projects:
TAME Melaleuca; TEAM Leafy Spurge
3. Take Home Message
Outline
Sacramento / San Joaquin River Delta
• Largest freshwater estuary on the West Coast (68,000 surface water acres)
• Irrigates 4 million acres of Central Valley cropland valued at $25 billion
• Provides drinking water to 25 million people in CA
• Habitat for 56 rare, threatened or endangered species
• 2 million recreational boat trips per year, 100 marinas
• Stockton and Sacramento ports ship 4 million tons/yr
Major Delta Weeds
Brazilian egeria (Egeria densa)
South American spongeplant (Limnobium laevigatum)
Waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)
Curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus)
• Manual removal (handpicking)
• Mechanical control ($50,000/ac)
• Biocontrol • Release of five insect species on two weeds by
USDA ARS and CDFA
• Chemical control - Glyphosate ($400/ac – floating weeds) - 2,4-D - Fluridone ($5,000/ac- submersed weeds) - Imazamox - Penoxsulam - Diquat
Integrated Aquatic Weed Management
Hydroacoustic Assessment of Brazilian Egeria Treatments
Before fluridone treatment OCT 2014
1 yr after fluridone treatments FEB 2016
Red – abundant submersed plants
Green – moderate submersed plants
Blue - few to no
submersed plants
TAME Melaleuca AIPM Project
http://tame.ifas.ufl.edu
1998 2004
1998 2004
TEAM Leafy Spurge AIPM Project www.team.ars.usda.gov
biocontrol released
biocontrol released
WHY AREAWIDE IPM?
• Research, Coordination and Integration over a Region
• Multiple Customers and Stakeholders
• Develops Resources and Training that will last Beyond the Initial Research Project
Take Home Message
Areawide IPM: Pests of Forest and Urban Trees
Paula Shrewsbury, Ph.D.Department of EntomologyUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD [email protected]
Non-native Forest Pests: Excellent candidates for Areawide IPM
• Economically and environmentally devastating
• Highly mobile; human assisted distribution; pest populations in many states
• Impact trees in natural and urban forests, wood industries (diverse habitats)
Biology and Economic Assessments of Insect “Guilds” – 3 “Poster Pests” (of ~450
non-native forest and urban tree pests)
1. Guild 1 – Boring Insects • Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis
2. Guild 2 – Sap-Feeding Insects• Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Adelges tsugae
3. Guild 3 - Leaf-Feeding Insects• Gypsy Moth, Lymantria dispar
Aukema et al. 2011
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)
http://www.emeraldashborer.info
EAB has killed > 100 million trees in 32 states, 3 Canadian provinces
2002 ‐ First detected in North America
2002 - MI2003 - MD
What’s at stake?• ~100% ash mortality (1-3
yrs)
• All 16 native species susceptible
• ~8 billion ash in US forests, wetlands
• 30-90 million ash in urban forests
• Management costs and losses: > $20-60 billion
• Ash saw timber value: $25 billion
• Baseball bats
Green ash: Fraxinus pennsylvanica
White ash: Fraxinus americana
7
• ~Ash is in the olive family (Oleaceae)
• More than 44 other species of organisms have unique associations with ash
• Will these become extinct as well?
• Social costs – trees, gardens affect health and well-being of people
What’s at stake?
Expenditures and Losses from EAB compared to all non-native borers
Costs are largely borne by homeowners
and municipal governments
Poster Pest: Hemlock Woolly Adelgid
Untreated infestations can lead to tree death in less than ten years
Current distribution of HWA in the US is limited to locations where minimum winter temperatures stay above –28.8C (-20F)
Hemlock wooly adelgid change in distribution over time
Fig. 3. The current distribution of eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis; hatched areas) in the northeastern United States, superimposed on maps of current and projected minimum temperature thresholds for hemlock woolly adelgid survival (red, grey, and black areas). The current distribution of HWA in the US is limited to locations where minimum winter temperatures stay above –28.8 8C (white areas; Skinner et al. 2003). Based on recent climate projections (Fig. 2; Hayhoe et al. 2006), the area of hemlock protected by this extreme cold could besignificantly reduced by 2070 (red areas). If HWA adapts to extreme cold (see text), hemlock may be limited to small pockets in the extreme northern portions of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and Wisconsin where temperatures drop below –35 8C (black areas).
Climate change will greatly increase the range of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in North America
Aukema et al. 2011
Expenditures and Losses from HWA compared to all non-native sap feeders
Slow the spread1900 1965 1994
Gypsy Moth on the Move
Expenditures and Losses from GM compared to all non-native foliage feeders
Areawide IPM towards reducing economic and environmental effects of invasive forest pests
• Uniform suppressive pressure against the total pest population over generations (broad spatial and temperalscales)
• Collaboration and multi-year plan - Everyone must participate!– Multi-agency, institution; local, regional, national, citizens
• Research and Extension to inform government agencies, practitioners, and citizens on sustainable management of invasive insects
• Emphasis on systems-based strategies that utilize multiple tactics that emphasize prevention, avoidance, monitoring, and suppression using practices that are biologically-based and reduce risk to human health and the environment
What lies ahead for forest pests?
Global Economy = Global Biota
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
Bill
ions
of D
olla
rs
U.S. Trade Balance of Payments - Imports
Source, U.S. Census Bureau
“There is a 32% chance that another highly destructive borer will enter the US in the next 10 years”
Non-indigenous forest insect pests
High impact pests
Aukema et al. 2011
Areawide IPM: Forest pests in natural and urban environments
Paula Shrewsbury, Ph.D.Department of Entomology
University of MarylandCollege Park, MD USA
Brown Marmorated Stink Bug:
An Invasive Areawide Pest
Kelley J. Tilmon, The Ohio State University
Photo courtesy of John Tooker, Penn State University
BMSB: Pest of Fruit, Vegetable, and Field Crops
ipm.msu.edu
wsu.edu
udel.edu
stopbmsb.org
BMSB in Soybean: Up to 40% Yield Loss
First detection: Allentown, PA – late 1990s
www.stopbmsb.org
Brown
Marmorated
Stink Bug
Distribution,
2018
Washington State University
Washington State University
University of Maryland
Washington State University
University of Maryland
Ohio State University
How Areawide IPM Could Help
• Research to understand how populations in
one habitat influence others
• Coordinated monitoring and management in
different regions, crops, settings
• Importation biological control to suppress
populations region-wide
Stink Bugs in New Places
Thanks! Questions?